netdev - Re: [PATCH] can: sja1000: fix compilation on x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20121214.163758.465958297963655994.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:37:58 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mkl@...gutronix.de
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, andreas@...sler.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: sja1000: fix compilation on x86

From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:33:44 +0100

> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int sja1000_ofp_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
>  	}
>  
>  	irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
> -	if (irq == NO_IRQ) {
> +	if (irq <= 0) {
>  		dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "no irq found\n");
>  		err = -ENODEV;
>  		goto exit_unmap_mem;

I don't see anything existing which says this is the proper
transformation.

There is no consistency at all for the tests of the return
value of irq_of_parse_and_map().

And if anything testing against zero is the correct thing to
do, universally.

I'm not applying this or pulling from your tree, sorry.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html